By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
noname2200 on 20 March 2012
Edit Thread
zero129 said:

Then you would of also seen where i said "except for the last few minutes", thats what this topic is all about. The Mass Effect games have been consistent in their story's, and that's why i, as are many other people so upset with the ending of mass effect 3. As it is not consistent at all with the other games, or even its self. Everything you have done in the last 2 games and this one means nothing in the end, it all comes down to 3 choices, and them 3 coices all pretty much have the 1 outcome. So it was a big let down to us fans of the game.

The broad topic is about the end in general, yes. My discussion with Vertigo-X was about a far more narrow aspect of the ending. You're now interjecting your only-somewhat-related ideas about the broad topic into the narrower discussion. That is the root of the confusion here. I am not now, nor have I ever, disputed the reason why fans are disappointed with the ending. Primarily because I am also in the camp.

Vertigo-X said:
noname2200 said:
Vertigo-X said:

It is precisely why the indoctrination theory holds so much weight. That nonsensical ending sequence after Shepard goes unconcious from the Reaper attack seems to indicate he is in a dream/being indoctrinated when he is talking to the boy-God.


Counter-point; Mass Effect is a pulp sci-fi series which has hitherto shown roughly zero sense of subtlety when it comes to its plot (or themes).

This entire thing is akin to the Zelda Timeline: trying to fit things which were never meant to fit together is ultimately a fruitless exercise.


I don't understand how subtlety fits in with the Indoctrination Theory. There have been subtle elements to Mass Effect's story as a whole and even the developers themselves say the 'ending' was made for the purpose of discussion. This essentially gives them a license to be 'subtle' with whatever symbolism/themes they want.

In order for the theory to work, the player must peice together a disparate series of (often small) events, and tie them together with (often smaller) bits of the series' lore. Little of the evidence that points to the indocrtination theory is ever front and center in this game's plot, and some of the information required in the theory requires the player to have read the Codex. I think we can agree here, correct? As persuasive as it may be, there is never a single scene or speech the player can point to in support, right?

By contrast, the rest of the series' plot has been absolutely straightforward. Information important to the plot has been explicitly stated to the player in a manner which can not be skipped. And when the series wants to you to think about subjects like racial tolerance, or the importance of teamwork, or your low odds of survival, or whatever the series has not been shy about beating you over the head with the message. Can we agree to this statement? If we do, then I think it follows that the series is probably not going to turn into Mulholland Drive or Vanilla Sky in the final five minutes. When the head writer said he wanted "Lots of speculation from everyone," I'm extremely confident he meant this to come from the fact that he didn't bother to answer many of the series' big questions* or even the questions created by introducing a major plot character with only sixty seconds left in the series (or from leaving in snippets of an ending video that probably relied on content that was ultimately cut).

 

*Think of the part where he said he ditched the Q&A with Casper, because he didn't want to hand out information the player didn't "need to know."